There is not much to see here because the previous deals with Fuji-Xerox and Samsung are similar (wording varies however). There is little to be worried about, but small companies that use embedded Linux ought to put an end to coverages such as this, which remain non-specific. Why would Linux require coverage? What Microsoft patents does Linux infringe on? Not a word from Microsoft. Recall deals where companies got betrayed or overcharged because patents simply remained hidden. In any event, here is the obnoxious part of news:

Under the agreement, LG will be able to use Microsoft-patented technology in its products, including Linux-based embedded devices.

There was a discussion about the wording a while back. It’s very vague, but it appeared not to have been the kenrel the last time (possibly just Mono on the phones). In any event, there is no technical collaboration (to defend the cash cow with OOXML), sales ‘tax’, or interoperability ‘tax’.

Note: I have modified the site’s tagline to “Exploring the reality behind exclusionary deals with Microsoft and their subtle (yet severe) implications”. Hopefully it aligns with our extended scope, which is rooted in the Novell deal.

I’ve been writing about this since it all started up with Novell in November at our blog and web site, but our readers are still very confused as to what the heck is going on (it could very well be the writing, I know). They are not lawyers, and want to know how this affects the IT manager — not the legal team or the FSF.

What are the direct consequences if MS continues to snap up vendors? I’m not talking the “religious” implications of such a scenario — I’m talking the day-to-day business of IT guys and managers in the trenches. I’m hearing “this is bad” from all over, and understand completely where that is coming from, but how does it hurt interoperability, which is one of the main concerns of IT managers today?

I guess I’d have to ask – how does it help interoperability? If Microsoft wanted to interact with Linux better, it is quite easy – it’s all open source, they can have a look at what the interfaces are and go at it. Or, even easier, use an established open standard / protocol. Or, document their own interfaces and protocols for Free use, as the EC ruling is requiring. Like Red Hat maintains, interoperability shouldn’t require an agreement.

The technical interoperability aspect of these deals is a red herring, the objectionable portion of these deal is precedent they set that the tax being imposed on implementing interoperability is justifiable, the manner in which they willfully circumvent the expressed intent of the GPLv2, and the fact that they amount to enabling a monopolist derive revenue from their only competition in the form of royalties based on spurious and vague claims.

Assuming Linux eventually converts to GPL3 this would bar LG from using Linux in their devices. LG is a major, major manufacturer. Linux is being used in more and more appliances, especially phones. There is even an agreement among most of the major phone makers to adopt Linux. That’s why Linux now includes improved real-time support, despite the initial opposition of Linus; it is too important an opportunity to ignore.

Hardware manufacturers aren’t like Linux distributors; the O/S is not a major part of their product. And there are huge capital investments required to become a hardware manufacturer, plus economies of scale, which means that hardware manufacturers don’t just come and go. Brands come and go, but the manufacturers behind them are the same, they just put on different nameplates.

This move is designed to drive a wedge between the EFF and Linus and stop Linus from ever switching to GPL3.”

Jack: Microsoft is not about compatibility. If they succeed with their monopolistic strategy, Linux will not be free any longer, (and you will have no competition protection against monopolistic pricing) just as Microsoft’s Bill Hilf said. The only reason you have any compatibility is because of free software developers reverse engineering Microsoft’s deliberately obfuscated protocols.

Remember, one of the main developers behind SAMBA which gives you Windows interoperability resigned from Novell after they made that awful deal in November.

Thanks! On a side note, I didn’t mean to sound on one side of the issue or the other. I was looking for more straightforward info, as I imagine many people are hese days, and that’s what I got. Appreciate the links!

Ooh, I also forgot another thing. The patent deal, while a nice moneymaker and FUD for MS, is actually very stupid for a Linux company to sign because it omits (not that these deals should be encouraged at all) programs like OO.org, server to connected client, sendmail, wine, etc. Status of Mono is unknown, probably for FUD reasons again, things that Novell didn’t make, etc. Anyone who feels protected has fallen for it.

“1.9 “Other Excluded Products” means (a) office productivity applications (word processing, spreadsheets, presentation software, etc.) of the Parties that are hosted by or running on a computer acting as a server for a connected client device, and (b) new features and functions in the following categories of products of the Parties, but not to the extent the products embody operating system software or other enabling technologies: (i) video game consoles (e.g., Xbox video game consoles), console games, video game applications designed to run on a computer, and on-line video gaming services (e.g., Xbox live); (ii) business applications designed, marketed and used to meet the data processing requirements of particular business functions, such as accounting, payroll, human resources, project management, personnel performance management, sales management, financial forecasting, financial reporting, customer relationship management, and supply chain management; (iii) mail transfer agents (aka email servers); and (iv) unified communications.”

We have one patent. Currently 22 companies reference it, including Microsoft. All without permission or license. So we now have the right to sue them? Anyone know a good lawyer?

The patent is an established patented broadcast presentation system and method patent (number 5577042) that is being assigned to the companies listed below.

Abstract for current patent – A broadcast and presentation system for synthesis of diverse data transmission signals and multimedia application subsystems. The system includes a signal processing line for transmitting information signals in multiple formats, a plurality of application subsystems for receiving input information in a predetermined signal format, a switching matrix for receiving input signals from the signal processing line and outputting the signals to the application subsystems that are described in destination and identification information that is embedded in the signal. The system further includes converters if necessary for receiving signals in one format and outputting the signals in another format according to the identification information that is embedded in the signal. The switching matrix may be programmable and controlled by a processor. A method of transmitting information signals includes embedding an information signal with destination and identification information; routing the information signal to a selected destination in accordance with the embedded destination information; and directing the signal to an application subsystem for processing the information signal at the selected destination in accordance with the embedded signal identification information. A method of receiving information signals includes receiving an information signal that has identification information embedded in the signal and routing the information signal to a selected application subsystem that is specified in the embedded identification information.

Current U.S. Class: 370/257 ; 340/2.1; 370/232; 370/468; 379/243 Current International Class: H04L 12/28 (20060101) Current Public References which cited the patent with the patent Number and Title.

When I originally wrote the patent, I undertood how far reaching it was. I understood it was creating a whole new class of technologies. When we disclosed what we were doing in January 1993, I even coined the phrase “Convergence” and referred to the enviroment as “converged” and as a “converged network” which created an “interoperable environment”.

There were many witnesses to what was going on in those days. Jim “Rusty” Lewis, Mike McGraw, Bill Kurtz, and William Westscott to name a few, plus the meetings and presentations we gave to MCI, Pacific Telesys, AT&T and NYEX. We convinced enough people that AT&T, MCI and Pacific Telesys cooperated to allow us to engage in a national video conference durig NAB Convention in 1993 and convince Cincinnati Bell to step out of the way.

I am frankly tired of watching how downplayed our role at McGraw Broadcast and Gemini Group has been when it comes to “converged communications”. This patent defined Convergence.

What Else is New

The latest tactics of the patent microcosm are just about as distasteful as last month's (or last year's), with focus shifting to the courts and few broadly-misinterpreted patent cases (mainly Finjan, Berkheimer, and Aatrix)

The fightback against Section 101 and the US Supreme Court (notably Alice) seems to concentrate on old and new buzzwords, such as "Software as a Medical Device" ("SaMD") or "Fourth Industrial Revolution" ("4IR"), which the EPO recently paid European media to spread and promote

Infomercials are still dominant among news about patents, in effect drowning out the signal (real journalism) and instead pushing agenda that is detached from reality, pertinent facts, objective assessment, public interest and so on

A discussion about the infamous abundance of patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas (TXED/EDTX) and what this will mean for businesses that have branches or any form of operations there (making them subjected to lawsuits in that district even after TC Heartland)

The patent microcosm is so eager to stop the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that it's supporting sham deals (or "scams") and exploits/distorts the voice of the new USPTO Director to come up with PTAB-hostile catchphrases

Judgmental patent maximalists are still respecting high courts only when it suits them; whenever the outcome is not desirable they're willing to attack the legitimacy of the courts and the competence of judges, even resorting to racist ad hominem attacks if necessary

With or without the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which is the wet dream of patent trolls and their legal representatives, the EPO's terrible policies have landed a lot of low-quality patents on the hands of patent trolls (many of which operate through city-states that exist for tax evasion -- a fiscal environment ripe for shells)

The money-obsessed, money-printing patent office, where the assembly line mentality has been adopted and patent-printing management is in charge, is devaluing or diluting the pool of European Patents, more so with restrictions (monetary barriers) to challenging bad patents

he media in Europe continues to be largely apathetic towards the EPO crisis, instead relaying a bunch of press releases and doctored figures from the EPO; only blogs that closely follow EPO scandals bothered mentioning the new petition

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) sees the number of filings up to an almost all-time high and efforts to undermine PTAB are failing pretty badly -- a trend which will be further cemented quite soon when the US Supreme Court (quite likely) backs the processes of PTAB

The EPO is trying very hard to silence not only the union but also staff representatives; it's evidently worried that the lies told by Team Battistelli will be refuted and morale be affected by reality

Suspicions that Iancu might destroy the integrity of the Office for the sake of the litigation ‘industry’ may be further reaffirmed by the approach towards patent maximalists from IAM, who also participated in the shaming of his predecessor, Michelle Lee, and promoted a disgraced judge (and friend of patent trolls) for her then-vacant role